Mr.
Ruffley: I briefly want to confirm that the Opposition
attaches as much importance as the Government to the safeguarding of
vulnerable groups. I do not therefore have an issue of principle, but I
have a query that I hope is not
trivial. Will
the Minister explain why it was absolutely necessary to rename the
Independent Barring Board? I ask that for two reasons. First, that
original title has an element of stigma and sanction, which is a good
thing—“barring” is a good word. Secondly, the
Opposition are often struck by the remorseless amount of change that we
see from the Government. I forget whether it was Bolingbroke or Halifax
who
said: “When
it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to
change.” Mr.
Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): It was
Falkland.
Mr.
Ruffley: My hon. Friend, who is a more distinguished
historian than I will ever be, corrects me from a sedentary position.
It was a grand old Tory who said it in any
event. It
is a serious point that remorseless relabelling, rebranding and
rebadging—to use terrible PR-speak—is something that
Government should avoid as frequently as possible. Will the Minister,
as a careful and prudent keeper of the public purse in relation to the
Home Office budget, tell us the cost of the renaming in terms of
changing letterheads, business cards and contact details? I may well
have missed something, but the
change does not seem necessary. It is a semantic
change that will only cost the taxpayer, and confuse people who have
been cheerfully rubbing along and carrying out their lives by looking
at something called a barring body—I do not see why that name
has to change, but perhaps the Minister can enlighten
us. Mr.
Campbell: I am genuinely and sincerely grateful to the
hon. Gentleman for the Opposition’s support for what we trying
to do, and his reassurance that they treat the issue as importantly as
we do. He said that “barring” was a good word in his
view, and indeed it has some use as a word that sends out a message.
But in reality, in the widespread consultation, the stakeholders of the
vetting and barring scheme indicated that they did not particularly
like the word “barring”, and preferred the word
“safeguarding, because that gives greater prominence to the
safeguarding agenda. It grew from them, as opposed to the Government
seeking to change something for the sake of it, and I believe that it
sends out the right message.
The hon.
Gentleman asked about costs, particularly of letterheads. I am informed
that the IBB never had letterheads, so there would be no cost, but I
will check that, and if I find any costs, I will come back to
him. Amendment
308 agreed
to. Amendments
made: 309, in
clause 62, page 87, line 1, leave
out ‘1 to 21’ and insert ‘2 to 6, 8 to
21’. This
amendment deletes the replacement of ‘IBB’ by
‘ISA’ in paragraphs 1 and 7 of Schedule 3 to the
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 because amendment
NC31 amends those paragraphs so that they refer to the ISA
rather than to the
IBB. Amendment
310, in
clause 62, page 87, line 6, after
‘(asp 14),’
insert— ‘(na) the following
enactments in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Northern Ireland)
Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/1351 (N.I. 11)) (including any relevant
headings)— (i) Articles
2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 19, 29, 37 to 49 and
52, (ii) paragraphs 2 to 6, 8
to 21, 23 and 25 of Schedule
1, (iii) paragraphs 4 and 8 of
Schedule 2, (iv) paragraph 2 of
Schedule 3,
and (v)
paragraphs 1 to 3 of Schedule 6,’.—(Mr.
Campbell.) This
amendment replaces ‘IBB’ by ‘ISA’ in
provisions of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups
(Northern Ireland) Order 2007.
Clause
62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
6.45
pm
The
Chairman: We come to a point where I am obliged to ask
whether I have the Committee’s agreement to put together the
questions on whether clauses 63 to 76, to which no amendments have been
tabled, should stand part of the Bill. Both the Opposition and
Government Whips have said
yes.
Mr.
Ruffley: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I was not
aware that the clauses would be dealt with so rapidly. I seek your
guidance, because I should like to speak on clause
63.
The
Chairman: This has been a very reasonable Committee, and
there has been excellent co-operation across it. Is that the only
clause that the hon. Gentleman wishes to comment on? I seek guidance so
that I know how to proceed.
Mr.
Ruffley: Further to my point of order, Sir Nicholas. I
wish to comment on only clauses 63 and 73 in this
group.
Clause
63Educational
establishments: check on members of governing
body Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Ruffley: I am most grateful, Sir Nicholas, for your
excellent guidance and forbearance. I am particularly pleased that you
allowed me some latitude on clause 63. This important clause relates to
checks on those who are or seek to be school governors, and it throws
up a serious question. Subsection 13(3) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable
Groups Act 2006 ensures that an officer who runs those checks does not
commit a criminal offence if they do not make a check on a governor who
was appointed before section 13 became law. That is a clear exception.
Subsection 13(4) of that Act allows the Secretary of State by order to
set a date when that exception will come to an end—a sunset
provision. It
is important to understand how the time scale will operate, for the
simple reason that that time-limited exception allows for a check not
to be run against a governor who happens to be a paedophile. How long
does the Minister expect that exception under the sunset provision to
exist? I do not for one second suggest that Ministers have not got
their eye on that; it is clear from the explanatory notes that they
take the matter seriously. I seek to make no party political or other
point; this is an honest inquiry as to how long the phasing out of the
exception will take. There is a difference between the exception
existing for three months and it existing for a year. None of us on the
Committee, and certainly not the Ministers and officials, would want to
see an exception, which is there for understandable reasons, lingering
on. The longer the exception is there, the less focusing there will be
of the minds of appropriate officers, because the exception removes the
criminal liability of those officers who fail recklessly or negligently
to do the required checks of school
governors. We
want to ensure that the exception for those individuals who were
governors before the 2006 Act came into force does not continue for too
long. We want the norm to be appropriate officers making checks on all
school governors, whether they were governors before or after the
passage of that Act. It is on that question of genuine, honest,
non-partisan inquiry that I, and many families and schools, would like
the Minister’s
guidance. Ms
Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): Further to that
point, will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary say whether a similar
provision will apply to local authority members who visit schools? That
issue arose some time ago in my constituency. As selected
representatives we go in and out of all kinds of institutions without
any checks. I have only once been asked for a police check to visit a
children’s establishment, and that was when I was travelling
abroad with a voluntary organisation. Elected representatives are not
always immune from difficulties in this area either. Could my hon.
Friend respond to that point?
Mr.
Campbell: I am grateful to both the hon. Member for Bury
St. Edmunds and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North not
simply for raising the issue, but for the way in which they did so. We
have a shared concern. These are important questions. It is important
to get the right system in place to identify and exclude people who are
at risk. We also need to give confidence to people working in schools
and parents that the system is robust. That also helps to keep this as
a high
priority. The
hon. Gentleman raised the issue of sunsetting. We have said that we
will phase in the requirements to check over a period of time, but I
can assure him that this will be done on a risk basis. So the person he
identifies who has never been checked and yet could be a paedophile
would be placed in a very early stage in that period. While in theory
there may be a short period, I can assure him that it will be the
shortest period
possible. My
hon. Friend raised the issue of local authority members visiting
schools. To some extent it rather depends on the visit whether the
local authority member does any work for the school. If they do, they
will be checked. Again, we will be phasing in over a period of time. I
will certainly take away the points that she raises. There are a number
of people in elected positions who will fairly regularly go into
schools in their area. Indeed, it is important that we can give her and
the Committee the reassurance that she
seeks. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
64 to 72 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
73General
information powers in relation to persons entering or leaving the
UK Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Ruffley: The clause refers to the very important question
of the powers that the state has in relation to persons entering or
leaving the UK. It goes to the very heart of the broader issue of
border control. It will amend the Customs and Excise Management Act
1979 by inserting a new section, which will enable an officer of
Revenue and Customs to require a person entering or leaving the UK to
produce their passport or travel documents and answer questions about
their
journey. These
are sensible powers. They are also desirable because porous borders
only lend succour and aid to those who wish to commit crime. The
UK’s border is too porous in our view. I know that Ministers in
the Home Office are not happy either. The Minister for Borders and
Immigration
said: “we
have, compared to other rich countries, been liberal in our border
controls”. I
infer from that that he thinks the Government could do better at border
control. If that inference is correct, Ministers should adopt the
Opposition’s suggestion and have a dedicated border police force
to toughen up our
borders. Sixty
per cent. of illegal immigrants resident in the United Kingdom arrived
here illegally, the majority in the back of a lorry, extraordinarily
enough. People will
not need reminding that the economic and social costs of people
trafficking to the UK amounted to £1 billion in 2003. Some would
put the estimates much higher than that, particularly in non-pecuniary
terms. We know that weapons are smuggled across UK borders and we must
do better at clamping down on
that. The
powers in the clause will be important in improving our performance in
stamping out illegal weapon transmission into this country, people
trafficking and people wishing to enter the country illegally. The
powers will clamp down on those problems by sensible questions being
asked of individuals along with the requirement for them to produce
their passport and other documents when asked to by an official of Her
Majesty’s Revenue and
Customs. The
clause raises a bigger question. The Government have not been slouches
on this issue. They have decided to enter the electronic age in
announcing the e-Borders programme. I will not detain the Committee for
too long on this point. The e-Borders system is under development in
this country. It will ensure that the state can access a comprehensive
record of everyone wanting to come into or leave this country and of
everyone who crosses our borders. That will strengthen the security of
those who live in and visit our country, make it easier for those who
are travelling and trading legitimately, and maintain tight control of
our
border. Under
the e-Borders programme information will be collected from the carrier,
not the passenger. The carrier will be legally required to collect
information and provide it to the UK border authorities as part of a
check-in
process. The
clause asks sensibly for more information from individuals who wish to
cross our borders. I will try not to stray out of order. The e-Borders
programme must be integral to and complementary to the powers in the
clause that will improve the information and details individuals must
furnish when they wish to cross our borders. In that context, will the
Minister say at what stage Her Majesty’s Government are in the
e-Borders programme?
Information
supplied to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch suggests
that airlines, which will be the prime furnishers under the e-Borders
programme, are concerned about the costly changes they will have to
make to their reservation and departure control systems to comply with
the programme. They are also concerned about a lack of information from
the Government to prepare them for the changes. We are advised that the
e-Borders programme should have gone live on 2 October 2008, but
carriers were not told until 24 October that the deadline had been
revised. I have been told that the Home Office puts an unrealistic time
scale on carriers making the relevant changes. Some airlines will have
to make significant changes to meet the terms of the scheme as set out
by the
Government. Running
the e-Borders programme is a £650 million contract, which was
awarded in November 2007 to Trusted Borders, a consortium led by
Raytheon Systems. A delay has occurred, but I have been advised that
the programme is now scheduled to start being rolled out at the end of
February. That is pertinent when we are discussing the clause, because
the type of information required from passengers who are, after all,
crossing our
borders will include personal information such as
their date and place of birth, their address and the type of
information that would allow them to be checked against the watch list
of individuals who might pose a threat to the British
state. 7 pm
My
information is that Trusted Borders, when asked, has given no public
information on progress. One might say that that is commercial in
confidence information and that it cannot really talk about it, but in
these days of an ever present threat of terrorism, we are talking about
a Government programme that has been announced and will allow for
better alerts at relevant border points where individuals who might
pose a threat to this country are identified, but we do not have a
clear indication of when the e-Borders programme will be up and
running. If the Minister, who has made some sensible proposals on the
information individuals will have to provide, wants our support for the
clause, he should also tell us where we are on the e-Borders
programme.
| 
